alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Virginia Gibson, Appellant.

[944 NYS2d 237] —

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Braslow, J.), rendered February 10, 2011, convicting her of attempted burglary in the second degree, upon her plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that her plea of guilty was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made is unpreserved for appellate review, since she did not move to withdraw her plea on this ground prior to the imposition of sentence *(see*CPL 220.60 [3], 470.05 [2]; *People v Clarke,*93 NY2d 904, 906 [1999]; *People v Lopez,*71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]; *People v Hayes,*91 AD3d 792 [2012]; *People v Kulmatycski,*83 AD3d 734 [2011]; *People v Rusielewicz,*45 AD3d 704 [2007]). Furthermore, the “rare case” exception to the preservation requirement does not apply here because the defendant’s plea allocution did not cast significant doubt on her guilt, negate an essential element of the crime, or call into question the voluntariness of her plea *(see People v Lopez,*71 NY2d at 666; *People v Ortiz,*89 AD3d 1113 [2011], *lv denied*18 NY3d 927 [2012]; *People v Young,*88 AD3d 918 [2011]; *People v Deyes,*3 AD3d 575, 576 [2004]). In any event, the record reveals that the defendant’s plea was factually sufficient, and was entered knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently *(see People v Harris,*61 NY2d 9 [1983]). Moreover, the defendant’s post-plea statements of innocence made to her probation officer that appear in the presentence investigation *1034report did not warrant vacatur of her plea *(see People v Dixon,*29 NY2d 55, 57 [1971]; *People v Ingram,*80 AD3d 713, 714 [2011]; *People v Tinsley,*32 AD3d 447 [2006]; *People v Morales,*17 AD3d 487 [2005]; *People v Eaton,*14 AD3d 577 [2005]).

The defendant’s contention that she was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel as a consequence of her attorney’s failure to make a motion to withdraw her plea or to withdraw as counsel is without merit. There can be no deprivation of effective assistance of counsel arising from counsel’s failure to make a motion that, as here, had little or no chance of success *(see People v Caban,*5 NY3d 143, 152 [2005]; *People v Rivera,*71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]; *People v Ingram,*80 AD3d at 714; *People v Terrell,*78 AD3d 865 [2010]; *People v Goddard,*72 AD3d 839, 840 [2010]). Furthermore, the record reveals that the defendant received an advantageous plea, and nothing in the record casts doubt on the apparent effectiveness of counsel *(see Strickland v Washington,*466 US 668, 694 [1984]; *People v Henry,*95 NY2d 563, 566 [2000]; *People v Ford,*86 NY2d 397, 404 [1995]; *People v Yarborough,*83 AD3d 875 [2011]; *People v Watt,*82 AD3d 912, 912-913 [2011]; *People v Moss, 74*AD3d 1360 [2010]). Rivera, J.P., Eng, Chambers, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-29-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-29-2000
<CASH>                                          11,523
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  138,849
<ALLOWANCES>                                    73,371
<INVENTORY>                                    680,670
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               980,170
<PP&E>                                         423,894
<DEPRECIATION>                                 218,512
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,242,691
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          992,537
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          3
<COMMON>                                         5,211
<OTHER-SE>                                      99,180
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,242,691
<SALES>                                        103,567
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               103,567
<CGS>                                           84,899
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   84,899
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,067,201
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           (2,048,533)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (394,943)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,397,120)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (2,397,120)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,397,120)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,397,120)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.97)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.97)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET, CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-QSB FOR
THE PERIOD ENDING APRIL 30,1998, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1998
<CASH>                                         328,416
<SECURITIES>                                   275,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,974,987
<ALLOWANCES>                                    15,000
<INVENTORY>                                  2,001,164
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,946,951
<PP&E>                                         830,901
<DEPRECIATION>                                 262,671
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,843,323
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,164,363
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,150
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,519,085
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,843,323
<SALES>                                     16,782,138
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            16,782,138
<CGS>                                       13,024,668
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               15,393,220
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                34,580
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              54,839
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,321,609
<INCOME-TAX>                                   500,529
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            821,080
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   821,080
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.14
        

</TABLE>
# C_2020201EN.01005503.xml

| 15.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 201/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 201/55

---

Order of the General Court of 2 April 2020 — BV v Commission

(Case T-320/19) (1)

(2020/C 201/72)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 246, 22.7.2019.

---
**
**Exhibit 31.3**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

**Certification of Alvin Murstein**

I, AlvinMurstein, certify that: 

 
1.
I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of MedallionFinancial Corp.; and 

 
2.
Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report. 

 
Date: June 5, 2020By: /s/ Alvin Murstein Alvin Murstein Chairman and Chief Executive Officer**
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JANUARY 9, 2020

NO. 03-19-00625-CV

F. C., Jr. and A. R., Appellants

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 146TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, BAKER, AND KELLY

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE BAKER

This is an appeal from the decree terminating parental rights signed by the trial court on 

August 20, 2019. Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that 

there was no reversible error in the decree. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s decree

of termination. Because appellants are indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs 

is made.
#### In the Matter of Harry Ayrhart, Petitioner, v Brian Fischer, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

[942 NYS2d 385]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determi*1311nation of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule.

Petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with the use of a controlled substance after his urine twice tested positive for the presence of cannabinoids. Petitioner pleaded guilty to the charge with the explanation that he was exposed to heavy secondhand smoke as a result of other inmates smoking in the dorm showers. The Hearing Officer rejected petitioner’s defense and found him guilty of the charged rule violation. Following an unsuccessful administrative appeal, this CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. Petitioner is precluded from challenging the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the determination of guilt by virtue of his plea of guilty with an explanation to the charge *(see Matter of McMoore v Bezio,*67 AD3d 1218 [2009]; *Matter of Singleton v Dubray,*61 AD3d 1223, 1224 [2009]). Furthermore, petitioner’s procedural challenges, including that the Hearing Officer refused to consider his defense, are unpreserved for our review given his failure to raise them at the hearing *(see Matter of Shannon v Fischer,*73 AD3d 1373, 1374 [2010], *lv denied*15 NY3d 708 [2010]; *Matter of Perez v Goord,*304 AD2d 939, 939 [2003]).

Peters, PJ., Spain, Stein, Garry and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
# C_2020027EN.01003501.xml

| 27.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 27/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/35

---

Order of the President of the General Court of 11 November 2019 — Intering and Others v Commission

(Case T-525/19 RII)

(Interim measures - Programme entitled ‘EU Support to clean air in Kosovo’ - Tendering procedure EuropeAid/140043/DH/WKS/XK - Decision rejecting the suspension of operation of the decision to exclude an applicant from the further tendering procedure - New application for interim measures - Article 159 of the Rules of Procedure - Inadmissibility)

(2020/C 27/43)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Intering Sh.p.k (Obiliq, Kosovo), Steinmüller Engineering GmbH (Gummersbach, Germany), Deling d.o.o. za proizvodnju, promet i usluge (Tuzla, Bosnia and Herzegovina), ZM-Vikom d.o.o. za proizvodnju, konstruckcije i montažu (Šibenik, Croatia) (represented by: R. Spielhofen, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Bertelmann, J. Estrada de Solà and M. Kellerbauer, Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 159 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court seeking the suspension of operation of the decision of the European Commission of 29 June 2019 on the exclusion of the applicant from the further tendering procedure and its non-inclusion on the short list in connection with a procedure for the award of a contract under a programme entitled ‘EU Support to clean air in Kosovo’ to reduce dust and NOx emissions at TPP Kosovo B, Units B1 and B2 (EuropeAid/140043/DH/WKS/XK).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the application for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the application for interim measures.

| 2) | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Reserves the costs.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0001000235
<NAME> PATRIOT BANK CORP.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                  1.000
<CASH>                                           4,919
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           3,242
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     87,334
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         348,047
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           330,754
<LOANS>                                        630,196
<ALLOWANCE>                                      6,082
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,129,443
<DEPOSITS>                                     502,002
<SHORT-TERM>                                   309,603
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              4,117
<LONG-TERM>                                    240,192
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      49,768
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,129,443
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 45,590
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               29,656
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   298
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                75,544
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              20,565
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              51,510
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           24,034
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,200
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 507
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 26,402
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,377
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,377
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,200
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .37
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    2.44
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,525
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 4,087
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    1,065
<RECOVERIES>                                       104
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                6,082
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             6,082
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                              6,082
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          6,082


</TABLE>
Amendment to Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan



 Exhibit 10.6.1 
 AMENDMENT TO 
 GREEN MOUNTAIN COFFEE ROASTERS, INC.

 Employee Stock Ownership Plan 
 This Amendment to the Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan is made and entered into by Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc. (the “Company”). 
 WHEREAS, the Company established the Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan (the “Plan”) effective as
of January 1, 2000; and 
 WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms of the Plan, the Company reserved the right to amend the Plan at
any time, subject to the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code and other applicable law. 
 NOW THEREFORE, by adoption of this
amendment, the Company hereby amends the Plan, effective January 1, 2009, as follows: 
  

	 	1.	Question B.4(b) of the ESOP Adoption Agreement is revised effective to include all employees of Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc. and its subsidiaries such as
Keurig, Incorporated; and 

  

	 	2.	The Plan’s vesting schedule for Participants shall be as follows: 

  

				
	 Year(s) of Service
	  	Percent Vesting	 
	 Less than 1 year -
	  	0	% 
	 1 but less than 2 years -
	  	25	% 
	 2 but less than 3 years -
	  	50	% 
	 3 but less than 4 years -
	  	75	% 
	 4 or more years -
	  	100	% 

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has executed this Amendment as of January 1,
2009. 
  

							
		 		 	GREEN MOUNTAIN COFFEE ROASTERS, INC.
				
	 /s/ Valerie Jennings
	 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Kathryn Brooks

	Witness	 		 		 	Duly Authorized Agent
<PAGE>

                                  Exhibit 21.2

                  Subsidiaries and Joint Ventures of Registrant

             TB Wood's Corporation, Subsidiaries, and Joint Ventures
                                December 28, 2001

Registrant: TB Wood's Corporation (Delaware)

     Subsidiary: TB Wood's Incorporated (Pennsylvania)

           Subsidiaries: Plant Engineering Consultants, Inc. (Tennessee)

                         T.B. Wood's Canada Ltd. (Canada)

                         TB Wood's (Mexico), S.A. de C.V. (Mexico)

                             Subsidiary: Industrial Blaju, S.A. de C.V. (Mexico)

                         TB Wood's Foreign Investment Company (Delaware)

                             Subsidiary:  TB Wood's (Deutschland) GmbH (Germany)

                                 Subsidiaries: Berges electronics GmbH (Germany)

                                               Berges electronics S.r.l. (Italy)

                         TB Wood's Enterprises, Inc. (Delaware)

                         TB Wood's North Carolina, Inc. (Delaware)

                         TB Wood's Foreign Sales Corporation (Barbados)

            Joint Ventures:  TBWE Belt Drive Components LP (Pennsylvania)

                             TBWE Belt Drive Systems LLC (Pennsylvania)

                             TB Wood's (India) Private Limited (India)
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                  APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                          5,088
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   5,105
<ALLOWANCES>                    0
<INVENTORY>                     10,926
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                22,832
<PP&E>                          10,219
<DEPRECIATION>                  0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  33,051
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           21,504
<BONDS>                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<COMMON>                        13
<OTHER-SE>                      9,597
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    33,051
<SALES>                         13,927
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                13,995
<CGS>                           (10,327)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                (1,409)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              (529)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 1,730
<INCOME-TAX>                    (142)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             1,588
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    1,588
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                   .12
        


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6383

ROGER LEE DEAL, SR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

R. Neely,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, 

District Judge. (5:11-hc-02033-FL)

Submitted: November 15, 2011 Decided: November 17, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roger Lee Deal, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Roger Lee Deal, Sr., seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

(2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certificate of appealability 

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that Deal has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
3

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 32.3

Noble Corporation, a Cayman Islands company

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of Noble Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended
December 31, 2013, as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dennis J. Lubojacky, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|               |  |                                               
|-------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------
|April 30, 2014 |  | /s/ Dennis J. Lubojacky                       
|               |  | Dennis J. Lubojacky                           
|               |  | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer    
|               |  | of Noble Corporation, a Cayman Islands company